Purpose: Optimal cancer care requires patient self-management and coordinated timing and sequence of interdependent care. These are challenging, especially in safety-net settings treating underserved populations. We evaluated the 4R Oncology model (4R) of patient-facing care planning for impact on self-management and delivery of interdependent care at safety-net and non-safety-net institutions.

Methods: Ten institutions (five safety-net and five non-safety-net) evaluated the 4R intervention from 2017 to 2020 with patients with stage 0-III breast cancer. Data on self-management and care delivery were collected via surveys and compared between the intervention cohort and the historical cohort (diagnosed before 4R launch). 4R usefulness was assessed within the intervention cohort.

Results: Survey response rate was 63% (422/670) in intervention and 47% (466/992) in historical cohort. 4R usefulness was reported by 79.9% of patients receiving 4R and was higher for patients in safety-net than in non-safety-net centers (87.6%, 74.2%, = .001). The intervention cohort measured significantly higher than historical cohort in five of seven self-management metrics, including clarity of care timing and sequence (71.3%, 55%, < .001) and ability to manage care (78.9%, 72.1%, = .02). Referrals to interdependent care were significantly higher in the intervention than in the historical cohort along all six metrics, including primary care consult (33.9%, 27.7%, = .045) and flu vaccination (38.6%, 27.9%, = .001). Referral completions were significantly higher in four of six metrics. For safety-net patients, improvements in most self-management and care delivery metrics were similar or higher than for non-safety-net patients, even after controlling for all other variables.

Conclusion: 4R Oncology was useful to patients and significantly improved self-management and delivery of interdependent care, but gaps remain. Model enhancements and further evaluations are needed for broad adoption. Patients in safety-net settings benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non-safety-net patients, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/OP.21.00161DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

safety-net non-safety-net
16
interdependent care
16
historical cohort
16
care
14
self-management care
12
care delivery
12
care planning
8
breast cancer
8
patient self-management
8
non-safety-net centers
8

Similar Publications

Background: Studies evaluating the association of safety-net hospitals (SNHs) with outcomes of surgical care in cancer patients have demonstrated mixed results. We sought to systematically investigate the association of SNH status with measures of surgical cancer care delivery and outcomes.

Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature identified from the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Importance: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) provide care to 30 million patients in the US and have shown better outcomes and processes than other practice types. Little is known about how the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to FQHC capabilities compared with other practices.

Objective: To compare postpandemic operational characteristics and capabilities of FQHCs with non-FQHC safety net practices and non-FQHC, non-safety net practices.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Importance: In-hospital mortality of patients with sepsis is frequently measured for benchmarking, both by researchers and policymakers. Prior studies have reported higher in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis at safety-net hospitals compared with non-safety-net hospitals; however, in critically ill patients, in-hospital mortality rates are known to be associated with hospital discharge practices, which may differ between safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals.

Objective: To assess how admission to safety-net hospitals is associated with 2 metrics of short-term mortality (in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality) and discharge practices among patients with sepsis.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Star Rating is widely used by patients and consumers, and there is continued stakeholder curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star Rating methods.

Objective: To calculate hospital star rating scores with and without the peer grouping step, with the former approach stratifying hospitals into 3-, 4-, and 5-measure group peer groups based on the number of measure groups with at least 3 reported measures.

Design, Setting, And Participants: This cross-sectional study used Care Compare website data from January 2023 for 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Utilization of minimally invasive colectomy at safety-net hospitals in the United States.

Surgery

July 2024

CORELAB, Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA; Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address:

Background: Prior literature has reported inferior surgical outcomes and reduced access to minimally invasive procedures at safety-net hospitals. However, this relationship has not yet been elucidated for elective colectomy. We sought to characterize the association between safety-net hospitals and likelihood of minimally invasive resection, perioperative outcomes, and costs.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!